Skip to main content

About your Search

20121128
20121206
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21
of inequality. that is why it is a civil rights issue. those people need choices, but it will have an effect on the individual child and more kids will be better educated and it will have a catalytic effect on the system. so i would also say that as well. [applause] >> i would only add standards to that. i think it's important that we as a society, said very clear expectations for what it is. michael is a secretary of state, not in the sense that condoleezza rice was, but as a member of the cabinet there. the secretary of state and the united foundation for education. >> it has been an absolute pleasure to hear you. it is worth traveling across the united states. >> the ultimate compliment. >> the first time i have ever worried about you judging. [laughter] >> he made the point that national security, one of the reasons that america won the cold war is that they recognize it as a moral complex more than anything. and america realizes that they couldn't win these nations in particular. it was a precondition of winning across the globe. if you'll forgive me, but it's the same danger now. the e
of inequality. that's why it's called a civil rights issue. they need choices. it will have them an effect on the individual child more kids will be better educate and ting will have a effect on the -- so i would say -- [inaudible] [applause] >> i would only add standards. i think it's important as we as a society set expectations for what it is we want. the secretary of state -- not sense that cobbed lee -- condoleezza rice was the in the united nations where i got educate. i look forward to hearing from you. >> thank you. >> can i say it's been an absolute pressure to hear you. it was worth traveling coach class. [laughter] [applause] >> the ultimate. >> to hear you spike. >> the first time i ever worried about you. >> us a tear i have -- [laughter] but you made the point that idea massive when you are changing things. they matter in national security. one of the reasons that america won the cold war, it recognized it was a moral conflict as much as nick else. an american realized they couldn't win the cold war and the -- [inaudible] in particular if it still had a scandal of segregation
the international covenant of civil and political rights on express understanding that he was not self-executing. so it did not create applications enforceable in the federal court. the supreme court in the united states has told at the very standard applied in this treaty that is not self-executing means nobody has access to any quarter. there is no enforceable right to get anybody in america create in this treaty. the mac to enter the senator, i'm not aware of the specific british request and what response they drew. i would only say this. it's important, mr. president to understand whether distemper senator from massachusetts and i differ on most of these treaties, with the same disagreement on the law of the sea treaty. the question is in my opinion is their sovereignty of believe infringed upon our sovereignty and with that i yield the floor. >> mr. president, i yield five minutes. to the senator from illinois. >> by methinks senator kerry, senator mccain, senator lugar and so many others who have put this matter to the floor. it was 22 years ago when a historic event took place on the fourth u
people and that's a high-tech in equality and that's why i've called it a civil rights issue. those people make choices, but it will have them an affect on individual child or kids would be better educated, and i think you'll have a catalytic effect on the system. so i would also say school choice. [applause] >> i would only add standards. it's important we as a society said very clear expectations, for what it is we want. the secretary of state -- as a member of the cabinet, secretary of state for education in the united kingdom where i got educated. so i look inward -- i look forward to hearing your questions. >> thank you very much. i just want to say, it's been an absolute pleasure to hear you. it was worth traveling coach on united. [laughter] >> the ultimate compliment. >> to hear you speak. >> the first time i've ever worried about -- [laughter] >> but you made the point that you're changing things and they also matter -- [inaudible] one of the reasons that america won the cold war is that it recognize this is a moral conflict much than anything else. and america realized tha
to the podium. she's a civil right and it's also a small business owner. >> thank you, my aunt. my work has been to protect the most vulnerable and i've joined fix the debt because one of the core principles is that we don't go up the fiscal cliff and they don't make sacrifices that crushed the most vulnerable populations. and so, i stand here to speak for those groups. we recognize the importance of doing true reform, true building revenue, true reform and reducing debt where we can, but not at the expense of the state did not for all of us. and all our interests have to be the same. all of us need to contribute to reducing debt to and removing us from this class. it is not an option for an action. if we have not, the people who are least likely to survive it are the ones who will be hit the hardest and hit first. i want to leave you with a bible verse because that's what they do. and it's philippines chapter two verse four. each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. >> thank you very much. next i'd like to invite up trend to come and media spec
it happen, but in the civil rights era, for example, when we had those celebrated filibusters, they were not partisan in the sense. they were factional. the fact is the filibusters done by southern democratic senators to oppose civil rights or voting rights legislation were opposed by republicans just as they were by notary -- non-southern departments, and civil rights legislation, overcoming filibusters being enacted was at least as much to the credibility of the senate minority leader as to lyndon johnson so what we've seen now is a regular use of the filibuster now as a partisan tool and not just a group of members of the party, but the entire party as fashioned by the minority leader. the second is the use of the filibuster routinely, not on issues of great national significance, and not simply on those issues with the majority leader kills the amendment tree, but on issues and nominations which ultimately pass unanimously or near unanimously, and keep in mind on no , nomins where holds, which are notices that you will deny unanimous concept, and in some instances have been filibust
about it or were willing to put everything on the line to make it happen. but in the civil rights era, for example, when we had those celebrated filibusters, they were not partisan in a sense. they were factional. the fact is that the filibusters done by southern democratic senators who opposed civil rights are voting rights legislation were opposed by republicans. just as they were by a non-southern democrats. and the fact is that civil rights legislation and overcoming those filibusters are being enacted were as much to the credit and responsibility of the senate minority leader as lyndon johnson. so what we have seen is a regular use of the filibuster tool. the entire party is fashioned by the majority leader. the second is the use of the filibuster routinely, not simply on those issues where the majority leader though the amendment. but on issues and nominations which ultimately passed unanimously or near unanimously. keep in mind nominations, in which he denied unanimous consent, in some instances have been the luster, a lot of them on executive nomination, you don't have amendme
passed the civil rights bill. said there was a precedent in terms of cooperation and climate. as representatives obey pointed out later on, that is manifested in what was brilliant on precedented interaction between the white house and congress on dealing the invasion to kuwait and tried to pull together a unified respect you. it was an accidental. i really believe we work awfully hard in order to maintain. the keyword was the fact that tom foley and president bush have been members of congress to get there. they had developed a personal relationship. other members of congress, including dave and raskin kautsky had been there. when the president was in the house there were personal relationships that we were in the nascent authority exploited as much as possible in order to maintain the comedy on the process. we were commenting on dick darman. dick was from our perspective the heart and soul of the details of the process and barry and others have been talking about the budget enforcement act. wanamaker stays in the days in the white house and 89 as the new chief of staff came
to be the chair of the judiciary committee subcommittee on constitution and human rights and civil rights. we've had a series of hearings on the issues of human rights and laws in the united states that affect them. i've also been honored to join with senator cardin of maryland, who chairs our helsinki commission senate delegation on several trips overseas where he's made human rights a major part of the agenda of that commission and of the united states. that's why one of the aspects of this bill before us is so important. sadly today in russia, country of russia we are seeing evidence of brutal, horrific treatment of individuals and abuses of human rights. senator cardin, whom i said earlier is a great voice on human rights in the senate, introduced legislation in this congress that would impose u.s. visa bans and asset freezes on those who commit gross human rights violations around the world. that was the cardin amendment, which i thought was a good one. the idea was just sefrp. those who -- just simple. those who commit such acts shouldn't be allowed to visit our country. period. this ca
compliance with the legislation. laws such as the civil rights rs act, title 9, the family leave act strengthen our position. most importantly, i'm reminded of the veterans who have returned from the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the brave veterans who have served in all the places we have asked them to go, who have advanced the interests and ideals of the united states. we owe them a debt for their service. many of them have returned with severe wounds, some requiring lifetime care. and i'd like to just read a statement from one of the veterans that appeared in front of the foreign relations committee, a disabled attorney and veteran -- marine veteran john lancaster. and this is what he said. and i quote here. "in 1968 i arrived in vietnam in the tet ow offensive as an infay platoon commander. five months later i was shot and injured in a fire fight. after months of rehas been takers i arrived back home in western new york a disabled veteran. although my friends and family welcomed me home, society did not receive me quite as we will. while there is certainly tension around the poli
and that the message will be clear to those who are violating civil rights so horrendously. and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, the questions on amendment numbered 3254 offered by the senator from new hampshire. amendment numbered 3245. excuse me. the senator from new hampshire. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in chambers wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 54, the nays are 41. the amendment is agreed to. mr. reid reid: move to reconsid. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president, could we have order. the presiding officer: will the chamber please come to order. may we have orderment -- order. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, we have one more vote t. will take -- start in just a few minutes. senator levin wants to say somethi
with disabilities act, and what it has done to our society. like our civil rights act. what it's done to break down the barriers and to show that people with disabilities can contribute to society, if only given the chance and the opportunity. i would think that we would want for them to then say yes, we'll be a part of a worldwide effort to break down those barriers against people with disabilities we want be part of a worldwide effort that says it's not right, it's not okay, to leave a baby on the side of the road to die simply because that baby has down syndrome. you would think we would want to be part of an effort, a global effort that says it's not all right to keep kids out of school and away from education because they have a physical disability, they use a wheelchair. or an intellectual disability. you would think we would want to be part of an effort like that that says it is not okay to put people in cells, chained to cells, whose only crime is that they are disabled. you would think we would want to be part of that effort. we've done that in this country. we've done wonderful things. an
the civil rights act and the voting rights act and the americans with disabilities act, is still capable of voting to change things, let alone send a message that could change the world. i ask colleagues to do for the world what they've done for america -- walk down the aisle here and for millions everywhere who cannot walk make a stateme statement. raise your voice and vote for millions who are voiceless in their own lands. stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. this is not about the united nations. this is about common humanity. and this vote is to test whether the senate will stand up for those who cannot see or hear and whether senators can hear the truth and see the facts. please don't let captain brzynski down, please don't let senator bob dole down. most importantly, don't let the senate and the country down. approve this treaty. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. a senator: mr. president? i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer:
judiciary, property law and human rights law, trying to expand civil society in ways that will make china flourish in the future. we are lucky to have you. three clique points i want to make before we move on, before we hear from professor alford, cohen and gewirtz. it is important to note that in the cycles of the u.s./china relationship we are entering an extraordinarily interesting period. i can't remember a time in recent history where we have had a president in an election but roughly coincided exactly with the leadership change in beijing. so what have we seen in beijing? in recent weeks, this very month. 2,000 delegates visiting beijing, putting together a slate of 370 committee members, chopping off 25 members of the politburo and some agreement around not 9 but 7 members of the standing committee of the politburo which i would refer to or considered to be the board of directors if it will end a reelected president on this side which is to say we are going to begin the new year with a clean slate and that ability which is so unusual in the u.s./china relationship to start fresh an
the leadership conference on civil and human rights, the wounded warrior project, the hindu american foundation the islamic center of -- society of north america, the jewish federations of america, the national catholic social justice lobby, and the veterans of foreign wars. let me share a couple of letters. bernard from franklin county in my state wrote, "i'm concerned about recent grumblings about former senator santorum and others. i was a lot of regard for the a.d.a. and a a wareness of discrimination against people with disabilities. when will the senate take up this u.n. resolution? what can i do to convince oppositional senators that this is an important and necessary resolution for people with disabilities, especially our nation's veterans? well, bernard, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- nor mccain, former majority leader bob dole, both of whom served our country honorably in the armed forces, and 21 veterans organizations agree with you. this should be an opportunity for all americans to come together and show the world we're committed to ensuring the basic human dignity
a tendency to destroy their civil and their political righ rights. to be more safe they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free." our nation's founders warned us about the grave danger of sacrificing our most basic liberties in the pursuit of security -- security at all costs. they provided us with the constitution framed to prevent precisely such a tragic outcome. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the feinstein-lee amendment and against the mistaken idea that the government may detain american persons indefinitely without charge and without trial. thank you, mr. president. i yield back the rest of my time to senator feinstein. mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, the amendment before you is cosponsored by the distinguished senator who just spoke, senator lee, senator coons, collins, paul, lautenberg, gillibrand, kirk, tester, johnson, sanders, whitehouse, heller, baucus, demint, webb, klobuchar, bingaman, rockefeller, begich, boxer, and a -- an amendment somewhat similar to this, all
-span: what was custer's luck? >> guest: custer's luck was an expression that people made up during the civil war to explain his incredibly fast rise to prominence, that he was always in the right place at the right time. it seems to me that you have to give custer credit for more than this. he was in the right place at the right time, but he knew how to make the most of those opportunities which many people would not. i think, for example, of what happened to another man who was appointed brigadier general at the same time that custer was, elon farnsworth. both of them became generals right before the battle of gettysburg. both were under the command of general judson kilpatrick, whose nickname was "kill cavalry" because he was so reckless with the men under his command. custer managed to somehow get his orders from kilpatrick countermanded by another general, and as a result, he played a significant part in the battle of gettysburg. when pickett was charging against the union front, stuart was coming around the rear with the idea that they would cut the union forces in half. custer actually
, that the magnitsky act remain focused scairl and exclusively on russia. that's what russian democrats and civil society groups tell me they want right now. they want congress to send their government a message on human rights and by keeping the magnitsky act focused for now on russia we can do just that. furthermore, the administration can use its own executive authority at this time to apply similar kinds of pressures contained in the magnitsky act to human rights abusers in other countries. i for one will be watching closely to see if they do. for in many other cases are crying out for greater u.s. leadership on behalf of human rights. and if the administration does not take the initiative to apply the leverage at our disposal to these other cases beyond russia, that is the surest way to ensure that the congress will act to globalize the enact next year. there are still many people who look at the magnitsky act as anti--russia. i disagree. i believe it's pro-russia. believe it's pro-russia because this legislation is about the rule of law, and human rights, and accountability which are values
reid's theory. right now, if you look at the voting history of the same there is a pro-gun majority in the senate. if subject to civil majority but would have a chance of passing to another thing that is very, very important is getting rid of senate majority leader harry reid and the future majority centers. their needs new point of order to get rid of this. reid's tactic about 60 times, far more than its predecessors all combined. it is something that would allow all members of the senate to actually participate in this deliberative process, to offer amendments. and if you were to pass this, it would be something that would be great to pass with 67 votes shutting down the debate. you might not have -- old problem of the let's call serial filibusters, it might actually go away if republicans were actually allowed to producer in the process. what we are seeing now is a construction of the minority's rights, the minority party's rights and individual's rights by trying to get rid of the motions to proceed, during the bills by enforcing the so-called talking filibusters. if you can try
and the politicians. it must promote high standards of journalism and protect both the public interest in the rights and liberties of individuals. it should set and enforce standards. here individual complaints and provide a fair, quick and inexpensive arbitration service to do with civil law claims. the chair and other members of the body must be independent and appointed by a figure and open process. it must comprise the majority of members who are independent of the press. it should not include any serving editor or politician. that could be readily achieved by an appointment panel, which could itself include a current editor with a substantial majority demonstrably independent of the press and the politicians. in the report, i explained you might be involved. although i make some recommendations in this area, it is absolutely not my role to seek to establish a new press standards code were to decide how an independent self regulatory body would go about his business. as to standards code, i recommend the involvement of an industry committee, which could include an involved serving editor's. that
to be a civil war between the view of people like steve and the view of some on the hard right. and i thought up here i'm not going to say a challenging thing about governor romney or pour snalt any wounds. but a few hours ago governor romney did a conference call to thank some of his donors. and he said that the reason he lost was that the president had given gifts, his word gifts to young people in the form of student loans and student loan repayment process. gifts to the latino policy by saying dream act kids would not be deported over the coming years. gifts of healthcare. so that says fundamental misreading about what happened. i'll pour more salt in the wound. paul ryan said the reason we won is because we did tpwhell you shallen areas. we won his hometown by 24 points and he lost it by ten and it's not an you shallen area. so it's disturbing within eighty days there is that think about that gift to young people, latinos. gifts of contraception to women. so if that's your diagnosis, and it actually has eerie echoes of the 47%. so to the think of soul searching. governor romney is going off
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21